Saturday, 29 December 2012

Navy and Grey

A casual combo from yesterday. The weather was around zero degrees Cesius when me and my girlfriend were on a walk. I wanted to have something sort of smart, but still casual and with some nice rougher textures.

This unlined tie has been great. Good for almost any kind of outfits, and the semi-soft wool is just great for the season.

I got this square from Barney's summer sale for just 5 dollars. There is no tag, and I've seen the same product for some brands for a $70 RRP so I think made a good deal.

The thick and washed chinos in a semi-dark khaki color are a pair I bought especially for this kind of outfits. Most of my other trousers in similar hues have been altered to a slightly more dressier fit and have cuffs, not to mention their more "sleek" fabrics. So, for these a bit rougher combinations I couldn't wish for better pants.

A question for you. When you say "altered to a slightly more dressier fit", what does that entail exactly? I recently bought several trousers and would like to have them tapered (if necessary) and hemmed to the correct width and height. This is trickier than it seems (too narrow and it looks clownish or girlish, too short and the pants won't go with certain shoes, too long or wide and it looks sloppy) and any tips you have would be appreciated.

May I ask: your preferred width (measured flat across the hem), whether you taper at all, and your shoe size? It might also be helpful to know your height generally!

Basically what I ment by that was that I have rather dressy cuffs in most of my chinos, and there are some differences in the width. Most of my chinos have been tapered to 16.5cm, like the ones here. When they have a cuff, the 16.5cm actually appears even slimmer. The chinos in this post are 16.5cm without cuffs, and you can compare the look to these:

These are with, but the same width. My shoes are mostly UK7 or UK7.5, but some are UK8 depending on the shoe. And I'm roughly 175cm. My preferrance is a lot slimmer than many people wear themselves though.

Wow! 16.5 cm is quite a bit slimmer than I imagined. And your shoe size is a surprise too. May I ask your pant size as well (waist and inseam)? I imagine you're a slim 30W or so, given that your taper doesn't look disproportionate at all. Consider putting up a page akin to: http://dappered.com/2011/07/joes-measurements/ :)

I actually wear size 31 or 32 trousers, depending on the make etc. Most 31s are too slim from my tighs, and 32s have just enough room. Also, I have a bit of a donut on me right now so 30 wouldn't be possible anyway. :D

I would say that the slimness of your outfit and different pieces should always follow your proportions. A heavier or wider (be it fat or a sporty frame) person can't really have the leg opening much under 19-20cm, and the shoes should be picked accordingly. A very narrow sleek lasts are very hard to pull off if you are a wider person. For example, many atheles have so massive tighs that I could never see a very slim leg working for them.

16,5cm is where I've come to after years of looking for the right measure. 17cm starts getting too wide for my shoes, and 16cm is too small to put my feet through. Also, cuffs and pressing make the leg look slimmer (and better looking in my opinion) and fit the shoe width better. If you look at my pictures, I use this 95% of the time.

Lastly, about Incotex. It's part of the Slowear group, famous for using the best fabrics available. Now, I can't say for sure that they are "the best available", but they are better than anything else I've come across. I would rate them well above Ralph Lauren, and I think RL has very good quality when it comes to pants. I would say pretty much in a different league to BR or even Brooks Brothers. :)